http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5680 of 2007

PETITIONER: Irrigation Research Institute & Anr

RESPONDENT: Kripal Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/12/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        5680            OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8722 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned  single judge of the Uttranchal High Court at Nainital allowing  the writ petition filed by the respondent.

3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent raised dispute stating that his alleged  removal from service without any prior notice was in violation  of the provisions of Section 6(N) of the UP Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 (in short the ’Act’).  A reference was made to the  Labour Court to adjudicate the following question.

       "Whether the termination of the services  of Sri Kripal Singh s/o Sri Udal Singh, Beldar  by the employers from 4.6.1992 is justified  and/or legal?  If no, to which  benefit/compensation the concerned workmen  is entitled and to what extent?"          4.      It is to be noted that the stand of respondent was that he  had worked as a Beldar on muster roll from 1.2.1991 to  3.6.1992 in the H-2 Division and he was removed from service  with effect from 4.6.1992 without notice.  The Labour Court on  considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the  respondent had not worked for 240 days in any calendar year  and, therefore, the question of any violation on Section 6(N) of  the Act did not arise. The order of the Labour Court was  challenged in the writ petition. The High Court found that the  Labour Court did not consider the fact that the number of  days mentioned in the statement of the present appellants was  the same as those appearing in the muster rolls produced. It  was concluded that the muster roll clearly indicated the  number of days on which the workman had actually worked  and not those along with holidays. On inclusion of the number  of holidays mentioned, the respondent had worked for more  than 240 days.  The High Court did not find any substance in  the plea of the present appellants concerning the dispute  being raised after about eight years.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  respondent-workman had himself stated that he was always  ready and willing to do the work and since the employer did  not give him work, therefore, the working days of the entire  month are to be accounted for on that basis.  He had made the  calculations showing that he had worked for 308 days.  It is  pointed out that the Labour Court categorically held that the  details filed and examined by the Labour Court clearly  indicated that holidays to be computed in accordance with  prevalent statutes have been included while working out the  details of the case on which the workman had worked.  The  High Court also did not consider the effect of the present  dispute which was raised after about 8 years.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted that the High Court had applied the correct  principles of law.   

7.      The factual dispute presently raised is not really relevant.

8.      It is to be seen that the authenticity of the muster rolls  produced was not questioned by the respondent-workman.   Effect of a dispute raised after about 8 years was also not  considered.  It is not in dispute that the Labour Court cannot  refuse to answer the reference because of delayed approach.   But it can certainly modulate the relief.  The High Court had  not analysed the factual position.  The High Court, in fact, had  failed to notice that the Labour Court had taken into account  the actual days, when the respondent worked and the number  of holidays to be taken into account.  Thereafter it held that  the workman had, in fact, worked for 220 days.   Since there  is a similar amount of confusion as to whether the holidays  have been computed or not and whether the workman had  actually worked for more than 240 days, we remit the matter  to the Tribunal to compute the actual days for which the  respondent had worked and then modulate the relief if any to  be granted taking into account the delayed approach. We  make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on  merits.  

9.      The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no  order as to costs.